Rationalism or Peity?

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't know where you get the idea that post-middle age civilizations rely on temples, monasteries, monuments, wonders and theology. Or the idea that the tech tree is realistic

I'm talking about in game...(since the dabate is about Rationalism v. Piety in game)

The Social Policies and the Tech tree are both non realistic.

But while IN GAME: Piety excludes Rationalism, Theology is required for Education... and the entire top half of the tech tree.

So a purely 'nonreligious' Civ5 civ would be stuck in the middle ages (they might be able to get Renaissance/Industrial troops, but not modern ones)

Also the fact that a more Rational civ will be less Free (due to opportunity costs) seems to be a fairly significant indictment of the concept by the makers of Civ 5

 

[Michl2602]

The belief in God incited science throughout history.

While this might be true, religion always had (and like you see in Islam now has) the exact opposite effect, as soon as it becomes established. Europe was very "religious" in the middle ages, but the established religion almost killed all our scientific traditions and stole us ~1000 years of development.

Generally it's hard to use the word "realistic" together with "history", as even the historicans weren't in place, when the events they describe happened.

You know what's the difference between God and the historicans? God can't change the past.

 

[BlackWizard]

Offtopic:

Why do people often write peity instead of piety(correct spelling)?
Why do people often write diety instead of deity(correct spelling)?

Are these words spelled differently on different versions of civs?

Edit: Hope wrote them right way

 

[Ramesses]

Offtopic:

Why do people often write peity instead of piety(correct spelling)?
Why do people often write diety instead of deity(correct spelling)?

Because English is the worst language of all time.

 

[SpearMan153]

Offtopic:

Why do people often write peity instead of piety(correct spelling)?
Why do people often write diety instead of deity(correct spelling)?

Are these words spelled differently on different versions of civs?

Edit: Hope wrote them right way

must be a problem with their keybard

 

[skallben]

must be a problem with their keybard

LOL, I tried to not laugh so hard and almost drooled coffee all over the keyb(o)ard....

 

[civ_king]

While this might be true, religion always had (and like you see in Islam now has) the exact opposite effect, as soon as it becomes established. Europe was very "religious" in the middle ages, but the established religion almost killed all our scientific traditions and stole us ~1000 years of development.

Generally it's hard to use the word "realistic" together with "history", as even the historicans weren't in place, when the events they describe happened.

You know what's the difference between God and the historicans? God can't change the past.

Could you um actually read about the Middle Ages from um reputable historians that um goes in-depth?

 

[Michl2602]

The topic was Piety vs. Rationalism and that's quite an interesting question. In my first 2 games (Aztec, Russia) I took Liberty --> Piety and pulled up science mainly by buildings (building no wonders before being in clear advance scientifically) and later took up order. That worked quite good.
This time (Persia) I started with Honor (taking the whole tree) and in between the first 2 policies of Tradition (to get this 33% bonus on wonders) and the first policy of Patronance (cause I had 4 CS-allies and Rationalism wasn't open yet).
As I happened to have marble in the city founded second it was clear that this would be the wonder city and built any wonder with a good press here in the forum and also split the buildings a bit more between culture and science.
That lead to slower researching until ~1800 AD, but meanwhile I generate by far more science as in any of the former games, but still don't know whether it catches up (but have lots of other advantages, if it doesn't).
I think to really play Rationalism well, some has to save up some policies for it (could only save those in the Honor tree, because the others I took are inevitable). That's what I probably will try next time with a level higher.

 

[Michl2602]

Could you um actually read about the Middle Ages from um reputable historians that um goes in-depth?

The first historican (or if you better like economist) that goes in depth in a direction that interests me is Friedrich Engels. I'm not interested in reading some beautified lies about "organized religion" and Kings directly sent from God. Many thanks!

Still would be interested to know what you would suggest to read for a "more in depth research of the middle ages"?

 

[GenericPlayer]

And yes, yes I know: Islam thinkers gave us their number system, elementary optics (telescopes) and gunpowder in the 7th-9th century. But if you look at the 12 centuries since then, very little has been discovered since then from Islamic scientists. Most technologies used by the Ottoman empire were simply borrowed or stolen from European / Oriental neighbors. Whatever your thoughts on Islam, the fact that the most influential A-list imam's / scholars from Al-Ansar University in Cairo (the most important University in the entire Islamic world) and the very influential Muslim Brotherhood ALL preach that there is nothing left to discover in this world that is not already contained in the Quran / Hadith. That's not an opinion; that's expressly written in the Qu'ran. And there is remarkable agreement among Islamic scholars that more than half of the population of the Islamic world (women) should be discouraged from being educated. That's not to say that there aren't extremely smart and scientific people coming out of the Islamic world in the past 12 centuries, but I would argue that its more DESPITE Islamic thinking than a result OF religious thinking. A religion that preaches a non-negiotable dogma that "we already know everything there is to know" is certainly not amenable to inciting scientific thought and its advancement.

There is no Ansar University in Cairo. When Azhar University said that the door to "Ijtihad" was closed - this does not make reference to scientific knowledge, but spiritual knowledge. "Ijtihad" is basically re-interpretation of faith based upon the current times - nothing to do with science. Azhar University has several campuses that teach and research many scientific disciplines like Engineering and Medicine. I do not agree that faith should not be re-interpreted, but that is a far cry from what you said.

Also saying that Islamic Scholars agree that women should not be educated is grossly incorrect. The Azhar University you touted as being the most respected authority also has women colleges and institutions. I know at least two female doctors who are Azhar graduates.

Sorry to go off topic but misinformation spreads on the internet because nobody corrects people like this.

The OP said "belief in god" and not 'religion'. Religion is what man says about God (I got that from Dan Brown). Many men of science pursued their experiments and studies in the hope of being able to see something divine.

We had early scientific fallacies like the 4 elements and gravitational acceleration dependent on mass - and religion had nothing to do with those blunders. Using religion to explain why the world is the way it is is just another human screw up, but unfortunately disproving the existence of all powerful deity is not something that can be done in a lab. Disproving the 4 element theory is much easier.

Another point to make is that need is the mother of invention. Religion created a need for temples and monuments, and that in turn created a need of mathematics and engineering. It created a need for wars and domination, and that created a need for metallurgy and chemistry. Religion has been a big part of human existence and I would think it would be impossible to predict what the world would be like today without it.

 

[Michl2602]

Religion has been a big part of human existence and I would think it would be impossible to predict what the world would be like today without it.

That's definitely true, but I still would be more interested what the world would be like, if religion would be used in a way the religious geniusses throughout history had thought it to be used.
For most people living in the so called "culturized" parts of the world (what actually means they have enough food and weapons to kill others and can't think beyond their little selfish advantages, and are not even able to really plan those correctly) it actually doesn't matter if they are religious or not, as they stay *something that got censored* both ways.

Sry, that I have to say that, but where are all these Indian populations and the Aborigines that all were high cultures in a spiritual sense? Right: Killed by the dumb with better weapons!
Where are the Trotzkists? Right: Same answer as above.

As Jesus told us, we should recognize them by the fruit they bear and that's what I do. But it really doesn't make me love anything here and if there wouldn't be things like this game, living here would be an absolute waste of time for me.

So thanks community, that you exist!

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Don't give me frigging jesus on this board! And the extras.

If anything, we need another patch.

 

[Ruberkaiser]

The new social policies system is more thoughtful than you give credit for kingsfan, with all due respect. This discussion has been centred around asking why choosing religion should shut the path to science for you and vice-versa, but the reality is that the social policies tree does no such thing.

Rationalism and Piety are treated very specifically as traditional, religious centred societies versus those driven by rational, evidence-based thinking methodologies that emerged following the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. Very few religious orders, if any, emerged unscathed by the new social patterns that developed in the early modern period. The reality is that rationalism and the traditional notion of piety have never coexisted particularly well, and the arguments in this discussion board are, perhaps, evidence of this.

At the end of the day, what is more immersive? Being forced to make the choice between rationalism and piety, as many in this series of forum posts seem to have done on some level, or accepting a politically dumbed-down fairy-tale marriage between the two? I am happy to say that I would gladly take the former of the two.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The new social policies system is more thoughtful than you give credit for kingsfan, with all due respect. This discussion has been centred around asking why choosing religion should shut the path to science for you and vice-versa, but the reality is that the social policies tree does no such thing.

Rationalism and Piety are treated very specifically as traditional, religious centred societies versus those driven by rational, evidence-based thinking methodologies that emerged following the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. Very few religious orders, if any, emerged unscathed by the new social patterns that developed in the early modern period. The reality is that rationalism and the traditional notion of piety have never coexisted particularly well, and the arguments in this discussion board are, perhaps, evidence of this.

At the end of the day, what is more immersive? Being forced to make the choice between rationalism and piety, as many in this series of forum posts seem to have done on some level, or accepting a politically dumbed-down fairy-tale marriage between the two? I am happy to say that I would gladly take the former of the two.

actually we can get the "politically dumbed down fairy tale marriage

Piety policies allow high populations...and with Public Schools and Universities they can race ahead in science

Rationalism policies allow more rapid acquisition of technologies... to better get Wonders+Cultural buildings.

 

[kingsfan]

The new social policies system is more thoughtful than you give credit for kingsfan, with all due respect. This discussion has been centred around asking why choosing religion should shut the path to science for you and vice-versa, but the reality is that the social policies tree does no such thing.

Rationalism and Piety are treated very specifically as traditional, religious centred societies versus those driven by rational, evidence-based thinking methodologies that emerged following the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. Very few religious orders, if any, emerged unscathed by the new social patterns that developed in the early modern period. The reality is that rationalism and the traditional notion of piety have never coexisted particularly well, and the arguments in this discussion board are, perhaps, evidence of this.

At the end of the day, what is more immersive? Being forced to make the choice between rationalism and piety, as many in this series of forum posts seem to have done on some level, or accepting a politically dumbed-down fairy-tale marriage between the two? I am happy to say that I would gladly take the former of the two.

And what is the Civilization model they used for this?

When I played Civ 4 I felt as if I was developing a realistic Civilization that I could compare to others that I have known and take them in an original direction with lots of variants. The social policies of Civ 5 are not like this. They make me think that I am creating a Civilization based off of what the developers want. I can only see two reasons why you can not research both trees at the same time.

1. The game would be utterly unbalanced with both trees being open at the same time.
(in other words, poor game design) they are trading game mechanics for realism. Why would you do this? This is predicated on the fact that no one can show me a Civilization that went through the test of time and progressed in Science without dipping in the piety tree.

2. The developers want to give people the option of creating and building a civilization with an atheist view in mind. I know this one may seem like a far cry to some of you but it is not to me. I game regularly and the one thing that pops out at me is the amount of young gamers that are atheists today. You have a right to your point of view. That is what this good ole US of A is all about. (I realize that people from other countries game and post in Civ Fanatics) Freedom of religion; the highest point on the piety tree. The part that I do not like is that they are feeding young minds with notion that a Civilization is possible without piety. You may be able to build temples and such but latter has never been done. All Civilizations that have progressed have dipped into the piety tree at some time.

My argument earlier that all people that are opposed to this thread are obviously atheist. I did not mean to offend anyone by that. I just wanted to point out the effect that I believe A GAME can make on some people. I really hope that some of the young people (or any age) will take the time to look into piety themselves. In their own lives. Beyond reading a book that some atheist wrote (I know this is very assuming but it is what I hear a lot from young atheists). It is a big part of your life (spirituality). I can certainly tell when it is missing out of someones life. Just like you can see the problems with civilizations that have gone full atheism. This is my opinion.

I know that this is just a game. I am posting in the Civ Fanatics forum and not in a Bioshock forum or an atheism forum so please...

 

[forty2j]

The belief in God incited science throughout history. Whomever made the Civ 5 tree didn't do their homework. The idea that you can have a nation of people without piety???? Who thought this was a good idea? At least Civ 4 was more realistic with religion. Civ 5 doesn't even make sense.

You don't stop gaining science when you go into piety, and you don't stop having happy (probably faithful) people when you go into rationalism. You are just choosing which to emphasize.